"Peer-reviewed" means clinical research has been reviewed by world-class experts

No, it does not. Peer reviewed means that a paper submitted for publication has been reviewed by at least one, but typically two, other scientists in the field. These are not "world-class experts", unless you call almost everyone working in the field a "world-class expert".

There is a lot of "politics" in publishing a scientific paper.

For many of the things isobars cites from the books, it is easy to find peer-reviewed scientific publications that prove exactly the opposite. Just that a study is newer than others does not necessary mean it is better or more likely to be correct.

It is quite worth the time to look at the original scientific research. .... There are plenty of studies that show stretching is "good" (positive numbers), and plenty of studies that stretching is "bad" (negative numbers). The differences between the individual studies are so big that combining them and coming to a "statistically relevant" conclusion seems like quite a stretch. All this is lost when reading about this in health magazines or books.

In general I agree (and have posted as much, particularly in regard to the research concluding that the MAJORITY of published research is fraudulent), and much of your specifics are useful. Whether extensive research into an isolated exercise tenet is worth any individual's effort is a highly personal decision; for a coach or physical therapist, probably so. For me, there aren't enough hours in the year to do that. I reserve that level of time investment for much more important issues, such as second-guessing my oncologists and even proving many of them wrong.

Notice the conclusion of the metastudy you cite:
<<<Our results clearly show that SS before exercise has
significant and practically relevant negative acute effects
on maximal muscle strength and explosive muscular per-
formance, while the corresponding acute effects on
muscle power remain unclear. These findings are univer-
sal, regardless of the subjectís age, gender, or training
status. However, the magnitude of the static stretch-
induced negative acute changes in performance was
more pronounced in maximal isometric tests compared
with maximal dynamic tests. ...
Based on the evidence from this study, we recommend
that the usage of SS as the sole activity during warm-up
routine should generally be avoided.>>>

Besides, that study addresses only diminished performance and your plot addresses just stretching duration. This book's chapter on the topic goes much farther, mentioning and/or discussing MANY studies on its few, if any, benefits and its downsides and quoting many of the leading researchers' bottom lines. Their consensus is that it's at least VASTLY overrated, probably a waste of time, and can lead to injury. My own experience and many other authors and studies concur, so I tend to believe it.

Quote...'or decades of research and researchers are wrong in showing that prolonged LSD ( long slow distance aka aeroibics) training usually does more harm than good.'

As usual, you misrepresent. Endurance cycling training methods (Extremely scientifically applied nowadays) use such as a structured PART of their endurance training. They do not SOLELY do any such thing!

If you and your quoted 'experts' (How many of them are real world competitors as distinct from theorists) think you know best prove it by challenging a modern competitive endurance cyclist over a long distance time trial, or a 100 mile race. (Tour de France perhaps, THE single most gruelling torture ever invented! ..and NO, they are NOT all on drugs.)

Marchant, at 100 years old was certainly not just pootling along, despite his obvious self deprecating modesty. (Not everybody 'bigs' themselves up.) At just 76, I can hold an average heart rate of only 148 over an hours gruelling climbing on the mountain bike, without getting into breathing distress, but it's close. Marchant must have been very close to the limit at an average 110 heart rate, at 100 years old.

To me, such unassuming people are the salt of the earth, and an inspiration to us all. He let his legs do his talking!

...'or decades of research and researchers are wrong in showing that prolonged LSD ( long slow distance aka aeroibics) training usually does more harm than good.'

As usual, you misrepresent ... you think you know.

Not only do you start your post with an attack and an attribution (neither you nor I know which of these findings I fully support, especially in my own case*) you cannot support because they're false, but you continue with irrelevant (to evidence based exercise physiology), outlying anecdotal examples which actually reinforce 100 pages I'm not going to type here. That's not misrepresentation; it's condensation. Besides, who usually knows more about the science and statistics of exercise physiology ... the jock or the trainer/researcher?

Dr. Kenneth Cooper, who invented the word, the science, and the Institute of "aerobics" and has devoted his professional life to it, agrees with my opening statement you quote. The details fill several chapters, some of which I've posted before.

* This book's author says everyone gets sore from extensive, very intensive exercise. I do not, and no doctor, trainer, jock, or book has ever offered an explanation beyond, "You're just lucky, I guess." OK, but one lucky outlier does not change the statistics.

The purpose of this thread is to offer ideas and a good source to people interested in putting some serious effort into improving their lives. It is not to prove the book's claims or fight with those who disagree with them.

Warts, reversals, contradictions, and all, random controlled trials (RCT) are still the best evidence we have to work with in predicting outcomes. That's why doctors are required to base their diagnoses and treatments on evidence based medicine. Mine often ask me to cite published RCTs chapter and verse when I offer something new to them or question their diagnoses or treatments. The more vital the issue, the deeper a smart patient digs. The ones who refuse to even look at the research or grossly misrepresent it are "fired", as we cancer patients say.

The plot really has very little to do with stretching duration. The stretching duration is simply used to spread out the studies. BTW, it is not "my plot", it is a figure (3 c) from the study that I had referred to.

What the plot does show is that there is a large number of studies which have come to very different results. Many studies show very little effect, either positive or negative. There are two studies that are clearly outliers - both show negative effects that are much more pronounced than all other studies. One of these two is also an outlier with respect to stretching duration.

Most statistical analyses assume some kind of random (gaussian) error distribution. The two negative outliers are clearly not random. This puts the validity of the entire statistical analysis in question. Leaving one or both of these studies out would quite likely give error margins that overlap 0 - in other words, no statistically relevant findings.

To say this in simple terms: a large number of studies were done which gave very different results. Many studies showed very small effects; a number of studies showed "practically relevant" positive effects, others similar negative effects.

The conclusion that isobars cites is from a meta-analysis that included 104 studies spanning 21 years and different continents. How exactly the stretching was done differed between each study. That is most likely one big reason why the results are all over the place. Throwing all these data together for a "meta-analysis" is roughly equivalent to putting melons and lemons in a blender, and then concluding that both melons and lemons are sweet and sour.

Another little thing about the stretching studies: they were all done with kids or young adults, mostly athletes around 20 years old. Most guys I see on the water are 3-4 decades older than that. I don't think I ever thought about stretching in my 20s, but nowadays, my body often yells at me "stretch!".

So do what feels best, and take what you hear from "peer-reviewed experts" just a little more seriously than things "seen on TV".

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum